linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] simple_lmk: Introduce Simple Low Memory Killer for Android

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 7 May 2019 09:53:44 -0700
From:   Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@...neltoast.com>
To:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "open list:ANDROID DRIVERS" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Martijn Coenen <maco@...roid.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] simple_lmk: Introduce Simple Low Memory Killer for Android

On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 09:28:47AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> Hi Sultan,
> Looks like you are posting this patch for devices that do not use
> userspace LMKD solution due to them using older kernels or due to
> their vendors sticking to in-kernel solution. If so, I see couple
> logistical issues with this patch. I don't see it being adopted in
> upstream kernel 5.x since it re-implements a deprecated mechanism even
> though vendors still use it. Vendors on the other hand, will not adopt
> it until you show evidence that it works way better than what
> lowmemorykilled driver does now. You would have to provide measurable
> data and explain your tests before they would consider spending time
> on this.

Yes, this is mostly for the devices already produced that are forced to suffer
with poor memory management. I can't even convince vendors to fix kernel
memory leaks, so there's no way I'd be able to convince them of trying this
patch, especially since it seems like you're having trouble convincing vendors
to stop using lowmemorykiller in the first place. And thankfully, convincing
vendors isn't my job :)

> On the implementation side I'm not convinced at all that this would
> work better on all devices and in all circumstances. We had cases when
> a new mechanism would show very good results until one usecase
> completely broke it. Bulk killing of processes that you are doing in
> your patch was a very good example of such a decision which later on
> we had to rethink. That's why baking these policies into kernel is
> very problematic. Another problem I see with the implementation that
> it ties process killing with the reclaim scan depth. It's very similar
> to how vmpressure works and vmpressure in my experience is very
> unpredictable.

Could you elaborate a bit on why bulk killing isn't good?

> > > I linked in the previous message, Google made a rather large set of
> > > modifications to the supposedly-defunct lowmemorykiller.c not one month ago.
> > > What's going on?
> 
> If you look into that commit, it adds ability to report kill stats. If
> that was a change in how that driver works it would be rejected.

Fair, though it was quite strange seeing something that was supposedly totally
abandoned receiving a large chunk of code for reporting stats.

Thanks,
Sultan